W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:36:53 +1100
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <137DA7AA-8144-4A04-9B0E-84021B918EEE@mnot.net>
To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

On 07/12/2011, at 11:57 AM, James Snell wrote:

> Current iterations based on today's feedback...
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-06.txt
> 
> Change summary:
> 
> - replaced user-agent with client

What's the reasoning here? Do you expect intermediaries to have preferences?

> - brought Preference-Applied back

This needs to be discussed. I'm very uneasy about turning this into Yet Another HTTP Negotiation Mechanism. 

> - Fixed grammar for Prefer and Preference-Applied
> - ABNF references
> - Added examples
> 
> - James
> 
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 December 2011 03:29, Alex Rousskov
>> <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
>>>> 7. The "wait" Preference
>>> Do you have to limit this feature to user-agents?
>> 
>> Good point.  In our work on timeouts we observed that intermediaries
>> are equally capable of placing their own constraints on time.  In
>> fact, there's nothing inherently wrong with an intermediary changing
>> the value to a lower value (my client was prepared to wait 30s, but I
>> have policy that limits this to 10), though increasing the value might
>> not work out so well.
>> 
>> --Martin
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 06:37:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT